Se estima que cada gramo de alcohol consumido aporta alrededor de siete kilocalorías ―una cifra muy cercana a la de las grasas― sin ofrecer a cambio al organismo ningún nutriente esencial como vitaminas, minerales, proteínas o fibra. De ahí el concepto de calorías vacías asociado a las bebidas alcohólicas. A esas calorías, además, habría que añadir, en el caso de los cócteles y combinados, las que aportan los refrescos azucarados. Por eso, el consumo de alcohol siempre se ha asociado con la ganancia de peso.
Years ago, I bought a contraption designed to separate and concentrate the most volatile components of a liquid mixture. I would tell you what I did with it, but I don't want to implicate myself in a federal felony.
Since 1868, it has been illegal for Americans to locate a "distilled spirits plant" in "any dwelling place," an offense currently punishable by a maximum $10,000 fine and up to five years in prison. The federal ban on home distilling is at the center of a case that the Supreme Court recently agreed to hear, which raises a specific constitutional issue but also highlights the absurdity of treating this hobby as a crime.
That policy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled last April, cannot be justified as an exercise of the federal government's tax power. To the contrary, Judge Edith Jones said in the court's opinion, the ban is "an anti-revenue provision that prevents distilled spirits from coming into existence," meaning its effect is "to reduce revenue instead of raising it."
Nor is the provision consistent with "the Supreme Court's explanation of how the federal power of taxation works," Jones wrote. When Congress imposes a tax, the Court explained in 2012, it "leaves an individual with a lawful choice to do or not do a certain act, so long as he is willing to pay a tax levied on that choice." But in this case, Jones noted, would-be home distillers "have only the choice not to do as they wish or risk fines and imprisonment."
The government argued that the ban helps collect liquor taxes by prohibiting a form of production that is difficult to detect. But "Congress cannot prohibit intrastate activity solely because it might produce products hard to tax," Jones said. If it could, she warned, there would be "no limit whatsoever" to its tax power.
Under the government's logic, Jones noted, "Congress may criminalize nearly any at-home conduct only because it has the possibility of concealing taxable activity. Home-based businesses may be forbidden. Remote work may be deemed a crime."
The Trump administration, which wants the Supreme Court to overturn the 5th Circuit's decision, argues that threatening to imprison home distillers is a "necessary and proper" safeguard against tax evasion. But whatever your take on the constitutional question, that policy is morally indefensible, haphazardly enforced, and inconsistent with the federal government's treatment of wine and beer.
The lead plaintiff in this case is Scott McNutt, a member of the Hobby Distillers Association. In 2014, McNutt received a "Notice of Potential Civil and Criminal Liability" from the Treasury Department, which said it had reason to believe he "may have purchased a still capable of producing alcohol and/or equipment and materials that may be used in the manufacture of a still."
The notice warned that "federal law provides no exemptions for the production of distilled spirits for personal or family use." It added that "unlawful production of distilled spirits is a criminal offense," which it erroneously claimed was "punishable by a fine of up to $500,000" as well as "imprisonment for not more than 5 years."
Meanwhile, online retailers such as Amazon sell a wide variety of home stills, many of which are explicitly advertised as appliances designed to produce alcoholic beverages such as vodka, gin, brandy, and whiskey. Customers could be forgiven for assuming that's legal, especially since federal law has long permitted home wine and beer production "for personal or family use."
McNutt's lawyers say he "owns a still that he has used to lawfully distill fuel alcohol and seeks to 'tinker around' with beverage spirits." Another plaintiff, Thomas Cowdrey, "likewise seeks to experiment in creating new beverage spirits, including 'apple pie vodka,' for which he has developed a recipe."
Because of a law Congress enacted 158 years ago, McNutt and Cowdrey would be felons if they acted on those desires. It might be time to rethink that policy.
It can be overwhelming to be handed an extensive wine list at a restaurant. Multiple pages with small print can be an overload of information — anxiety ensues, and you're not sure what to order.
But as a sommelier, I've trained to understand all those little details, so you don't have to.
Here are the mistakes I see people make when ordering wine — plus advice for what to do instead next time you're dining out.
Ordering something they can readily buy at their local grocer
Shebeko/Shutterstock
Sommeliers work hard to curate thoughtful and interesting wine lists at restaurants. If you can get the wine at your grocery store or any retailer you frequent, skip it while you're out.
Dining out is a time to explore and discover something new. This can be a grape you've never had, a producer you've never heard of, or a wine from a new-to-you region.
Sure, you've had a Tuscan red wine, but have you had a red wine from Oltrepò Pavese made from pinot-noir grapes? At Italian restaurants, I always look out for bottles of La Genisia pinot.
Exclusively sticking with overpriced bottles from major wine regions
Ritu Manoj Jethani/Shutterstock
Bordeaux is widely considered one of the finest wine regions in France, and Napa Valley reigns supreme in the US. So, it's no surprise that their wines often have price tags to match their elite status.
Instead, I always look for areas near these benchmark regions to expand my horizons and save a few bucks.
Just outside Bordeaux is a region called Cahors, which is known for making wines from the malbec grape. Crocus Wines is a reputable brand to try.
In terms of Napa alternatives, I tend to reach for bottles from the Anderson Valley in Mendocino. Classic producers include Goldeneye Winery and Husch Vineyards.
Only ever ordering white wines within their comfort zone
guys_who_shoot/Shutterstock
Ubiquitous, "comfort zone" white wines like chardonnay, sauvignon blanc, and pinot grigio tend to have cultlike followings.
If you're open to branching out and are in a white-wine rut, I say start by taking a closer look at the menu. For example, Italy has a treasure trove of "under the radar" varieties.
The country is home to over 1,000 native grape varieties, but my favorite Italian regions to look for on menus include Sicily, Collio, and Lugana.
Planeta and Monteleone are two of my favorite brands in Sicily. Primosic and Terre del Faet are top producers in the Collio region. And in Lugana (an all-white wine region), Ottella and Selva Capuzza reign supreme.
There are so many great varieties worth trying if you know a few keywords to look for.
Going for the full-bodied, high-alcohol reds
There's nothing better than a chilled red on a warm day.
anatoliycherkas/Getty Images
Over the years, I've observed that American wine drinkers really like big, assertive reds.
The problem with ordering such wines at many restaurants is that the bottles are often too young. They'd benefit from some aging, but restaurants need to sell their wines, so it's a bit of a conundrum.
My solution is to dapple with light-bodied reds that are ready to drink when bottled. The best examples include gamay, Cinsault, and valdiguié wines.
Some of my favorites include Camins 2 Dreams' gamay, Two Shepherds' Cinsault, and J. Lohr's valdiguié.
If it's hot out, consider enjoying these reds lightly chilled. Have the sommelier put the wine on ice while you peruse the menu and order your food.
By the time your appetizers are served, the wine will be ready to enjoy.
This story was originally published on September 15, 2024, and most recently updated on October 26, 2026.
Heineken has warned British bars and pubs that the boom in popularity of weight-loss drugs could lead to a fall in sales of beer and cider.
The world’s second-largest brewer sent a presentation to British hospitality customers earlier this month that said the use of GLP-1 medication – such as Ozempic and Wegovy – could reduce the desire to drink alcohol. This in turn could result in “fullness and fewer serves” of pints in pubs and bars, it added.
Katharine Viviano, a first-grade teacher at Pleasant Valley Elementary School in Peters Township, Pennsylvania, faces a charge of public drunkenness after officials said she became intoxicated at school and left her students unattended. According to police, Viviano left during the school day to buy alcohol, and when she returned, she hit another vehicle in the school parking lot. She later went into the bathroom attached to her classroom and refused to come out; another teacher found her in the bathroom semi-conscious. School staff initially believed Viviano was having a medical emergency, and they moved her students to another classroom and then to a playground while they dealt with the situation. Viviano reportedly smelled of alcohol, with slurred speech and bloodshot eyes. Authorities say she admitted drinking vodka earlier in the day.
The U.S. Supreme Court's 2026–2027 term just got a whole lot boozier. On Monday, the justices agreed to hear arguments later this year or next in the case of Department of Justice v. McNutt. At issue is whether the 1868 federal ban on distilling liquor at home is unconstitutional because it exceeds the lawful regulatory power of the federal government. If any modern Supreme Court case ever deserved its own drinking game, this one is it.
In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit found the federal ban on home distilling to be unconstitutional because Congress lacked the proper authority to issue such a ban in the first place. It was not a legitimate exercise of the congressional authority "To Lay and collect Taxes," the appellate court reasoned, because "the purpose of a tax is to raise revenue for the government;" yet this law "amount[s] to an anti-revenue provision" that only "prevents distilled spirits from coming into existence." And if it does not exist, of course, the government cannot tax it.
The 5th Circuit also denied that the federal ban on home distilling could be saved by the government's appeal to the Necessary and Proper Clause, which says that Congress has the authority "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
But the federal ban on home distilling cannot be "necessary" to the execution of the enumerated taxing power, the 5th Circuit argued, because the provisions of federal law at issue "tax nothing, and are distinct from the regulation of distilling alcoholic products that is permitted by federal tax law."
Nor did the 5th Circuit find the ban to be "proper." "By purporting to ban activity without a plain connection to the exercise of Congress's taxation power," it held, "Congress has essentially—and 'improperly'—invaded the reserved police and regulatory power of the states."
The Trump administration lost this case at the 5th Circuit and has now successfully urged the justices to hear its appeal. In its petition seeking review, the Trump administration faulted the 5th Circuit for its overeagerness to "second-guess" the "legislative judgment" of Congress. Instead, the Trump administration argued, the federal judiciary owes a great deal more deference to the federal government's regulatory priorities in a case like this. "A law is necessary and proper if it is 'convenient' or 'useful' for carrying an enumerated power into effect, and 'plainly adapted' to that legitimate end," the Justice Department's brief argued. "That is the case here."
This case may lead to an interesting divide among the Supreme Court's more conservative members. In United States v. Comstock(2010), a 7–2 Supreme Court embraced the Necessary and Proper Clause as sufficient constitutional grounding for the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which had empowered federal officials to order the indefinite civil commitment of "sexually dangerous" individuals who had already finished serving their prison sentences. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the majority opinion in that case, while Justice Samuel Alito voted in concurrence. In other words, they both endorsed a broad view of congressional power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. By contrast, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, voted in dissent. The Comstock ruling, Thomas protested, "comes perilously close to transforming the Necessary and Proper Clause into a basis for the federal police power that 'we always have rejected.'"
Are we about to see a similar Alito-Thomas split over the proper reach of federal power in this case? And what about Justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh? Will one or more of them play the Scalia part and similarly reject the Trump administration's broad reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause?
Today, the Supreme Court decided to review the case of Department of Justice v. McNutt, which challenges a federal law banning home distilleries. The key question in the case is whether the law in question is justified by the combination of the tax power and the Necessary and Proper Clause (which gives Congress the power to make laws "necessary and proper" for executing other powers granted to the federal government). This is likely to be most important Supreme Court Necessary and Proper Clause decision since at least NFIB v. Sebelius(2012), which ruled that a "proper" power permissible under the Clause is one that is "ancillary" to the implementation of an enumerated power; it cannot be a "great, substantive and independent" power. This case is likely to further clarify the meaning of "proper," perhaps by explicating in more detail what counts as a "great…and independent" power.
As explained in my earlier posts on the Fifth and Sixth Circuit decisions (linked above), I think this law is not "proper," and I hope the Supreme Court strikes it down. I summarize the reasons why in my post on the Fifth Circuit ruling:
The Fifth Circuit… concludes that the law in question exceeds Congress' authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause, which grants the power to makes laws "necessary and proper" for carrying into execution other federal powers. I think the court is right that the law in question is not "proper." The Supreme Court, in NFIB v. Sebelius(2012), ruled that a "proper" power permissible under the Clause is one that is "ancillary" to the implementation of an enumerated power. It cannot be a "great, substantive and independent" power. See my analysis in this article. The power claimed here is clearly "great and independent." As Judge [Edith] Jones notes, "[u]nder the government's logic, Congress may criminalize nearly any at-home conduct only because it has the possibility of concealing taxable activity."
I elaborated further in the post criticizing the Sixth Circuit decision:
[T]he Sixth Circuit is badly wrong to conclude that the law is "proper." As explained in my earlier post, the Supreme Court, in NFIB v. Sebelius(2012), ruled that a "proper" power permissible under the Clause is one that is "ancillary" to the implementation of an enumerated power. It cannot be a "great, substantive and independent" power. The power to ban any home-based activity that might serve a substitute for taxable activity outside the home is clearly a "great and independent power." As Judge Edith Jones explains in the Fifth Circuit ruling, "[u]nder the government's logic, Congress may criminalize nearly any at-home conduct only because it has the possibility of concealing taxable activity."
The Sixth Circuit tries to address this point by claiming alcohol is somehow special….
This distinction between alcohol and all other commodities is totally arbitrary. The same reasoning could justify banning home production of anything else that is more easily taxed if produced outside the home. And there is a long history of home production of all kinds of other commodities taxed or severely regulated by the government, ranging from cigarettes to illegal drugs, to pornographic videos.
While Judge Edith Jones (author of the Fifth Circuit decision) is one of that circuit's most conservative judges, the ruling was also joined by liberal Obama appointee Judge James Graves. On the other hand, the Sixth Circuit decision was written by prominent conservative Judge Raymond Kethledge. We shall see if the Supreme Court also divides on this issue in a way that cuts across conventional ideological and jurisprudential lines.
As noted in my post on the Fifth Circuit case, I think Judge Jones is not persuasive in arguing that the home distillery ban isn't "necessary," as well as improper. That argument is unlikely to prevail under the Supreme Court's expansive definition of "necessary, " dating back to McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), where Chief Justice John Marshall famously ruled that "necessary" includes any measures that may be "useful" or "convenient" for implementing an enumerated power.
As also noted in my posts on the two lower court rulings, I think the government has a better argument that this law is authorized by the Supreme Court's badly misguide precedent on federal power under Commerce Clause (which grants Congress power to regulate interstate commerce). But the Supreme Court is apparently not going to review that issue. The question presented submitted to the Court in McNutt is limited to the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Login
